On Monday, November 4, 2024, Israel's Foreign Ministry officially notified the United Nations that it has cancelled the agreement under which UNRWA operates. This follows last month's Knesset decision to ban UNRWA from operating in Israel by the end of 2024.
The Foreign Ministry also announced plans to expand activities by other international organizations as part of preparations to "boost alternatives" to UNRWA - a statement that has alarmed humanitarian experts.
UN agencies have consistently maintained that there is no viable alternative to UNRWA, which provides the crucial infrastructure for health, education, nutrition and social welfare services in the occupied Palestinian territories. The agency's extensive transport, logistics and administrative networks form the backbone of humanitarian operations in the region.
The announcement suggests Israel intends to fragment UNRWA's unified operation by dispersing its responsibilities across multiple organizations. This could create a problematic "divide and rule" dynamic, with agencies forced to compete for roles and funding in post-war Gaza.
Under the Geneva Conventions, Israel, as the occupying power, bears clear legal responsibility for the welfare of people living under occupation. This fundamental obligation cannot be outsourced to UN agencies or international donors without undermining the established framework of international humanitarian law.
The International Court of Justice recently reaffirmed the international community's longstanding position that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967 is illegal. This ruling brings into sharp focus the paradox of UNRWA's 70-year mission: why have the agency and its donors shouldered responsibilities that legally belong to the occupying power?
The reality is stark: despite the ICJ ruling and broader international consensus, Israel shows no signs of ending its occupation or accepting its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, having banned UNRWA, it appears ready to shift these responsibilities to other agencies and donors.
This creates an impossible dilemma for the humanitarian community. While accepting UNRWA's responsibilities would effectively absolve Israel of its legal obligations under international law, refusing to step in could lead to catastrophic human suffering.
The UN and the international community now face difficult questions: How can it uphold international law while ensuring Palestinians' basic needs are met?
It is easy to say that the UN should stand on international law and principle, but at the same time it cannot stand back while people starve.
The Foreign Ministry also announced plans to expand activities by other international organizations as part of preparations to "boost alternatives" to UNRWA - a statement that has alarmed humanitarian experts.
UN agencies have consistently maintained that there is no viable alternative to UNRWA, which provides the crucial infrastructure for health, education, nutrition and social welfare services in the occupied Palestinian territories. The agency's extensive transport, logistics and administrative networks form the backbone of humanitarian operations in the region.
The announcement suggests Israel intends to fragment UNRWA's unified operation by dispersing its responsibilities across multiple organizations. This could create a problematic "divide and rule" dynamic, with agencies forced to compete for roles and funding in post-war Gaza.
Under the Geneva Conventions, Israel, as the occupying power, bears clear legal responsibility for the welfare of people living under occupation. This fundamental obligation cannot be outsourced to UN agencies or international donors without undermining the established framework of international humanitarian law.
The International Court of Justice recently reaffirmed the international community's longstanding position that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967 is illegal. This ruling brings into sharp focus the paradox of UNRWA's 70-year mission: why have the agency and its donors shouldered responsibilities that legally belong to the occupying power?
The reality is stark: despite the ICJ ruling and broader international consensus, Israel shows no signs of ending its occupation or accepting its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, having banned UNRWA, it appears ready to shift these responsibilities to other agencies and donors.
This creates an impossible dilemma for the humanitarian community. While accepting UNRWA's responsibilities would effectively absolve Israel of its legal obligations under international law, refusing to step in could lead to catastrophic human suffering.
The UN and the international community now face difficult questions: How can it uphold international law while ensuring Palestinians' basic needs are met?
It is easy to say that the UN should stand on international law and principle, but at the same time it cannot stand back while people starve.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please ensure you leave your name, bei either selecting your google account (if you have one), or selecting 'name' from the drop down menu. Enter your name there. If confused, leave your name in the text of your comment.